No one white today owned slaves but most whites today benefitted from the 100 years after slavery.

[IM2]

I doubt very many people actually believe we are past racism.

White racism is pretty much a dead issue, when a majority white nation has for generations been actively discriminating against whites.

That is ridiculous.

Tell that to the new haven fire fighters.

YOur denial of the obvious reality is what is ridiculous.

And would you like compare that to the over 32,000 charges of racism filed by blacks to the EEOC in 2016?

Or how about the 33,000 cases filed in the same year the New Haven firefighters case was determined?

Pick your best example, and I will be happy to compare contrast the causes, effects, reactions and end results.

Make a thread providing evidence of this anti white discrimination. Because we will not be discussing it here.

 

[IM2]

This is the topic.

No one white today owned slaves but most whites today benefitted from the 100 years after slavery.

You are not discussing the topic nor is there any race baiting going on here.

How do I benefit, today, from redlining that ended over 50 years ago? Coward.

This is the topic.

No one white today owned slaves but most whites today benefitted from the 100 years after slavery.

You are not discussing the topic nor is there any race baiting going on here.

How do I benefit, today, from redlining that ended over 50 years ago? Coward.

You were asked to show how redlining benefitted whites Jut because you claimed it did not benefit you doesn't man it didn't. You were asked that so you would go do the research to find out how it benefits whites now. I know how it did so, and I am not doing the research for you.

You were asked to show how redlining benefitted whites

And I said I don't benefit today from redlining that ended over 50 years ago.

Jut because you claimed it did not benefit you doesn't man it didn't.

Just because you claim I do benefit today doesn't mean I do.

You were asked that so you would go do the research to find out how it benefits whites now.

And you were asked to prove your claim it does. You failed. Again.

I know how it did so

Did so? That's past tense. We're talking about your claim it does today.

and I am not doing the research for you

Yes, your complete failure to provide proof of your claim is obvious.

You were asked to show how redlining benefited whites. WHITES, not just you.

I said it doesn't.
You've yet to prove it does.
What are you afraid of?

And I said that you show me how redlining benefitted whites. You said it didn't but you can't show how it.

Are you scared?

 

[Montrovant]

His point is that he is Black and has achieved material and financial success but still feels that "whitey" owes him something.

No the thread topic nor is it my point.

It is the point. You have posted numerous race baiting threads in which you insult "whitey" and claim that :whitey" owe blacks something. That is your entire zeitgeist here. If you are goign to post such drivel, then expect to be called on it.

Insult whitey? Who cares? There has been no race baiting This government and every other level of this government owes blacks money for laws they enacted that denied us the right to earn money, then laws that made it so we could not earn what we were worth. Those are the facts and if that insults you so be it. We are talking about human rights violations. And whites who deny this are now going to be called on it here in this forum.

Now you will either discuss the thread topic or you will leave.

The government owes blacks money? Just en masse, huh? Does it owe the same money to other minorities? Will the funds used be pulled specifically from the taxes of whites?

Yes the government at every level owes lacks money.

The government is paying Native Americans money Montrovant. OK? Every year. OK?

The government paid every Japanese citizen 25,000 for WW2 Montrovant. OK?

No one asked these question when these things happen.

We are not going to turn this into the usual standardized white racist ranting about reparations. You pay them every year,

This is the thread topic:

No one white today owned slaves but most whites today benefitted from the 100 years after slavery.

You are the one that brought it up. You certainly do like to try to force everyone to discuss only what you want to discuss, but don't hold yourself to the same sort of standard.

 

[Correll]

White racism is pretty much a dead issue, when a majority white nation has for generations been actively discriminating against whites.

That is ridiculous.

Tell that to the new haven fire fighters.

YOur denial of the obvious reality is what is ridiculous.

And would you like compare that to the over 32,000 charges of racism filed by blacks to the EEOC in 2016?

Or how about the 33,000 cases filed in the same year the New Haven firefighters case was determined?

Pick your best example, and I will be happy to compare contrast the causes, effects, reactions and end results.

Make a thread providing evidence of this anti white discrimination. Because we will not be discussing it here.

Our national policy is to discriminate against whites in favor of blacks and browns.

This directly contradicts your OP. Thus it is on topic.


Try to be less dishonest.

 

[IM2]

No the thread topic nor is it my point.

It is the point. You have posted numerous race baiting threads in which you insult "whitey" and claim that :whitey" owe blacks something. That is your entire zeitgeist here. If you are goign to post such drivel, then expect to be called on it.

Insult whitey? Who cares? There has been no race baiting This government and every other level of this government owes blacks money for laws they enacted that denied us the right to earn money, then laws that made it so we could not earn what we were worth. Those are the facts and if that insults you so be it. We are talking about human rights violations. And whites who deny this are now going to be called on it here in this forum.

Now you will either discuss the thread topic or you will leave.

The government owes blacks money? Just en masse, huh? Does it owe the same money to other minorities? Will the funds used be pulled specifically from the taxes of whites?

Yes the government at every level owes lacks money.

The government is paying Native Americans money Montrovant. OK? Every year. OK?

The government paid every Japanese citizen 25,000 for WW2 Montrovant. OK?

No one asked these question when these things happen.

We are not going to turn this into the usual standardized white racist ranting about reparations. You pay them every year,

This is the thread topic:

No one white today owned slaves but most whites today benefitted from the 100 years after slavery.

You are the one that brought it up. You certainly do like to try to force everyone to discuss only what you want to discuss, but don't hold yourself to the same sort of standard.

I suggest you go back and read the post I made to that person before you make another comment. Seems that you lost your mind because I mentioned that blacks are owed money and that's all you remember. You don't seem capable of remembering the part where I told the person that I have responded to his opinion but we will not be discussing reparations in this thread..

I am not forcing you to do anything but what the rules of this forum require of us who are the OPS of a thread.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How do I benefit, today, from redlining that ended over 50 years ago? Coward.

How do I benefit, today, from redlining that ended over 50 years ago? Coward.

You were asked to show how redlining benefitted whites Jut because you claimed it did not benefit you doesn't man it didn't. You were asked that so you would go do the research to find out how it benefits whites now. I know how it did so, and I am not doing the research for you.

You were asked to show how redlining benefitted whites

And I said I don't benefit today from redlining that ended over 50 years ago.

Jut because you claimed it did not benefit you doesn't man it didn't.

Just because you claim I do benefit today doesn't mean I do.

You were asked that so you would go do the research to find out how it benefits whites now.

And you were asked to prove your claim it does. You failed. Again.

I know how it did so

Did so? That's past tense. We're talking about your claim it does today.

and I am not doing the research for you

Yes, your complete failure to provide proof of your claim is obvious.

You were asked to show how redlining benefited whites. WHITES, not just you.

I said it doesn't.
You've yet to prove it does.
What are you afraid of?

And I said that you show me how redlining benefitted whites. You said it didn't but you can't show how it.

Are you scared?

You said it didn't but you can't show how it.

Redlining doesn't benefit me today.
Despite your lie...err...claim that it does.
Coward.

Are you scared?

Your lies and cowardice don't scare me.

 

[IM2]

That is ridiculous.

Tell that to the new haven fire fighters.

YOur denial of the obvious reality is what is ridiculous.

And would you like compare that to the over 32,000 charges of racism filed by blacks to the EEOC in 2016?

Or how about the 33,000 cases filed in the same year the New Haven firefighters case was determined?

Pick your best example, and I will be happy to compare contrast the causes, effects, reactions and end results.

Make a thread providing evidence of this anti white discrimination. Because we will not be discussing it here.

Our national policy is to discriminate against whites in favor of blacks and browns.

This directly contradicts your OP. Thus it is on topic.


Try to be less dishonest.

Dishonest is lying about some nations policy of discrimination against whites.

Now since you have suggested it is national policy and that it has been a long time national policy produce the laws and policies that created anti white discrimination. I did say laws and policies. That means supreme court decisions and legislation. Not 30 year old studies about elite colleges where whites are the majority..

 

[IM2]

You were asked to show how redlining benefitted whites Jut because you claimed it did not benefit you doesn't man it didn't. You were asked that so you would go do the research to find out how it benefits whites now. I know how it did so, and I am not doing the research for you.

You were asked to show how redlining benefitted whites

And I said I don't benefit today from redlining that ended over 50 years ago.

Jut because you claimed it did not benefit you doesn't man it didn't.

Just because you claim I do benefit today doesn't mean I do.

You were asked that so you would go do the research to find out how it benefits whites now.

And you were asked to prove your claim it does. You failed. Again.

I know how it did so

Did so? That's past tense. We're talking about your claim it does today.

and I am not doing the research for you

Yes, your complete failure to provide proof of your claim is obvious.

You were asked to show how redlining benefited whites. WHITES, not just you.

I said it doesn't.
You've yet to prove it does.
What are you afraid of?

And I said that you show me how redlining benefitted whites. You said it didn't but you can't show how it.

Are you scared?

You said it didn't but you can't show how it.

Redlining doesn't benefit me today.
Despite your lie...err...claim that it does.
Coward.

Are you scared?

Your lies and cowardice don't scare me.

You benefited from redlining and other racist policies son. You do so now. What you think you didn't benefit from is not proof.

 

[Montrovant]

I doubt very many people actually believe we are past racism.

White racism is pretty much a dead issue, when a majority white nation has for generations been actively discriminating against whites.

That is ridiculous.

Tell that to the new haven fire fighters.

YOur denial of the obvious reality is what is ridiculous.

First of all, one incident, or even multiple incidents, of anti-white discrimination would not prove that there has been generations of active discrimination against whites. Second, even if there is this multi-generational discrimination against whites, it would not mean white racism is a dead issue.

The incident was caused by the legal theory of Disparate Impact, that makes the employer responsible for having equality of outcome despite any inequalities in the labor force caused by say, the shit urban schools.


Thus, the city, felt they HAD to discriminate against the white firefighters.


That theory was not something that only happens in New Haven, but is universal in our society.


The court system initially ruled in favor of anti-white discrimination.


When it reached the Supreme Court, the ruling, as normal in such cases, was by party lines with the dem appointed judges all in favor of blatant anti-white discrimination,

while the gop appointed judges ruled against the discrimination, BUT narrowly, not against the Disparate Impact Theory itself.


This shows that anti-whites discrimination is supported by both sides of the political divide.

None of that post validates the claims that "white racism is pretty much a dead issue" or that this country "has for generations been actively discriminating against whites."

As far as the New Haven firefighters, so far as I know they won their case, and were given back pay to the tune of $2 million. And while the case did not invalidate disparate impact, my reading of it is that it created a stronger standard to fill in such cases. Employers will have a harder time using fears of a disparate impact law suit as a defense for race-based decisions.

 

[Correll]

Tell that to the new haven fire fighters.

YOur denial of the obvious reality is what is ridiculous.

And would you like compare that to the over 32,000 charges of racism filed by blacks to the EEOC in 2016?

Or how about the 33,000 cases filed in the same year the New Haven firefighters case was determined?

Pick your best example, and I will be happy to compare contrast the causes, effects, reactions and end results.

Make a thread providing evidence of this anti white discrimination. Because we will not be discussing it here.

Our national policy is to discriminate against whites in favor of blacks and browns.

This directly contradicts your OP. Thus it is on topic.


Try to be less dishonest.

Dishonest is lying about some nations policy of discrimination against whites.

Now since you have suggested it is national policy and that it has been a long time national policy produce the laws and policies that created anti white discrimination. I did say laws and policies. That means supreme court decisions and legislation. Not 30 year old studies about elite colleges where whites are the majority..

Here is a big one.

Disparate impact - Wikipedia


"A violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act may be proven by showing that an employment practice or policy has a disproportionately adverse effect on members of the protected class as compared with non-members of the protected class."


"Where a disparate impact is shown, the plaintiff can prevail without the necessity of showing intentional discrimination"



Thus, in situations like the New Haven FIrefighters case, if not enough blacks apply or are qualified,


it is still on the EMPLOYER to have equality of outcome, or be vulnerable to being sued.


Thus, requiring hiring or promoting blacks based on being black, regardless of the qualifications of whites applying.

 

[Correll]

White racism is pretty much a dead issue, when a majority white nation has for generations been actively discriminating against whites.

That is ridiculous.

Tell that to the new haven fire fighters.

YOur denial of the obvious reality is what is ridiculous.

First of all, one incident, or even multiple incidents, of anti-white discrimination would not prove that there has been generations of active discrimination against whites. Second, even if there is this multi-generational discrimination against whites, it would not mean white racism is a dead issue.

The incident was caused by the legal theory of Disparate Impact, that makes the employer responsible for having equality of outcome despite any inequalities in the labor force caused by say, the shit urban schools.


Thus, the city, felt they HAD to discriminate against the white firefighters.


That theory was not something that only happens in New Haven, but is universal in our society.


The court system initially ruled in favor of anti-white discrimination.


When it reached the Supreme Court, the ruling, as normal in such cases, was by party lines with the dem appointed judges all in favor of blatant anti-white discrimination,

while the gop appointed judges ruled against the discrimination, BUT narrowly, not against the Disparate Impact Theory itself.


This shows that anti-whites discrimination is supported by both sides of the political divide.

None of that post validates the claims that "white racism is pretty much a dead issue" or that this country "has for generations been actively discriminating against whites."

As far as the New Haven firefighters, so far as I know they won their case, and were given back pay to the tune of $2 million. And while the case did not invalidate disparate impact, my reading of it is that it created a stronger standard to fill in such cases. Employers will have a harder time using fears of a disparate impact law suit as a defense for race-based decisions.

It demonstrates both the intent and the practice of the Law.

Yes, the fire fighers won. After they took it all the way to the Supreme Court. ANd they won by a 5-4 split.


The basic issue that Disparate Impact is still a valid grounds for suing puts the employers, ALL EMPLOYERS in the same boat where they can be held accountable for the failure of blacks to be qualified.


AND, as demographic shift continues, do you doubt that it will be long before a major liberal court reverses that ruling?

 

[Montrovant]

And would you like compare that to the over 32,000 charges of racism filed by blacks to the EEOC in 2016?

Or how about the 33,000 cases filed in the same year the New Haven firefighters case was determined?

Pick your best example, and I will be happy to compare contrast the causes, effects, reactions and end results.

Make a thread providing evidence of this anti white discrimination. Because we will not be discussing it here.

Our national policy is to discriminate against whites in favor of blacks and browns.

This directly contradicts your OP. Thus it is on topic.


Try to be less dishonest.

Dishonest is lying about some nations policy of discrimination against whites.

Now since you have suggested it is national policy and that it has been a long time national policy produce the laws and policies that created anti white discrimination. I did say laws and policies. That means supreme court decisions and legislation. Not 30 year old studies about elite colleges where whites are the majority..

Here is a big one.

Disparate impact - Wikipedia


"A violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act may be proven by showing that an employment practice or policy has a disproportionately adverse effect on members of the protected class as compared with non-members of the protected class."


"Where a disparate impact is shown, the plaintiff can prevail without the necessity of showing intentional discrimination"



Thus, in situations like the New Haven FIrefighters case, if not enough blacks apply or are qualified,


it is still on the EMPLOYER to have equality of outcome, or be vulnerable to being sued.


Thus, requiring hiring or promoting blacks based on being black, regardless of the qualifications of whites applying.

As I understand it, disparate impact is supposed to apply where the qualifications are not relevant to the employment. The case where it first came up, Griggs v Duke Power in 1971, the court ruled that the standards being used to just job qualification did not actually do so; instead, while the standards might hold an appearance of neutrality, because they did not actually have an impact on qualification for the job, but did prevent more minorities from getting employment opportunities, they were discriminatory in practice. Of course, you could argue that the practice of disparate impact itself creates a disparate impact.

However, the principle of disparate impact seems to be that employers cannot use standards for qualification which have a negative impact on a protected class if those standards are not important to the job. If a construction company decided to make having an African-American studies course credit one of the qualifications for someone doing manual labor, and that led to the company hiring a disproportionate number of blacks, members of other races would have a good disparate impact case. If, on the other hand, there were a written test on basic construction practices, and that led to a disproportionate number of blacks being hired, I don't think a disparate impact case would have a good chance of winning.

That is my reading of it, at least, which is only from a layman's perspective.

 

[Montrovant]

That is ridiculous.

Tell that to the new haven fire fighters.

YOur denial of the obvious reality is what is ridiculous.

First of all, one incident, or even multiple incidents, of anti-white discrimination would not prove that there has been generations of active discrimination against whites. Second, even if there is this multi-generational discrimination against whites, it would not mean white racism is a dead issue.

The incident was caused by the legal theory of Disparate Impact, that makes the employer responsible for having equality of outcome despite any inequalities in the labor force caused by say, the shit urban schools.


Thus, the city, felt they HAD to discriminate against the white firefighters.


That theory was not something that only happens in New Haven, but is universal in our society.


The court system initially ruled in favor of anti-white discrimination.


When it reached the Supreme Court, the ruling, as normal in such cases, was by party lines with the dem appointed judges all in favor of blatant anti-white discrimination,

while the gop appointed judges ruled against the discrimination, BUT narrowly, not against the Disparate Impact Theory itself.


This shows that anti-whites discrimination is supported by both sides of the political divide.

None of that post validates the claims that "white racism is pretty much a dead issue" or that this country "has for generations been actively discriminating against whites."

As far as the New Haven firefighters, so far as I know they won their case, and were given back pay to the tune of $2 million. And while the case did not invalidate disparate impact, my reading of it is that it created a stronger standard to fill in such cases. Employers will have a harder time using fears of a disparate impact law suit as a defense for race-based decisions.

It demonstrates both the intent and the practice of the Law.

Yes, the fire fighers won. After they took it all the way to the Supreme Court. ANd they won by a 5-4 split.


The basic issue that Disparate Impact is still a valid grounds for suing puts the employers, ALL EMPLOYERS in the same boat where they can be held accountable for the failure of blacks to be qualified.


AND, as demographic shift continues, do you doubt that it will be long before a major liberal court reverses that ruling?

Disparate impact is not, so far as I'm aware, exclusive to blacks or any one race.

 

[MizMolly]

I don't need help. If you don't like the discussion here, then don't enter.

You're not the boss of me, bub.

Here is this summary of this thread:

IM2 hates white people but brags about how he has achieved white values based success and the resulting lifestyle.

That is what is known as a combination of hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance.

I'm not the boss of you, but the moderators are And I just sent several of your posts to a moderator because I asked you to stay on topic several times and all you do is troll.

There is no such thing as white values based success.

Now you show me where said I hate whites. Saying whites have benefitted from policies' during the 100 years after slavery is not saying that

I don't think you've said you hate whites, but you certainly have generated an impression of disliking and blaming whites. It isn't consistent, but it's there.

And come on, sending posts because boed is off topic? That just sounds like whining. She's added just a few posts to this 800+ post thread, and it isn't as though she's been wildly off topic.

A troll is going get reported tp admin. Period.. I haven't generated anything like what you say. I am blaming whites for what they are responsible for doing.

What boed has done is post a series of personal attacks. I'm tired of that shit. You cannot answer the questions, you refuse to discuss the fucking thread topic and then in every mother fucking thread I get the same off topic bullshit from the same people. The only people in this thread whining at those like you who cry about racial quotas that do not exist or how I hate white people when I don't just because I call your white asses to the carpet because you believe a bunch of untrue bullshit and want to force others to believe it too..

So understand this. I had a discussion with a moderator because they had to throw out 9 pages of one of my threads due to the fact that mf's like boed trolled it so much. I had a thread closed because of the same ting. This shit is being done on purpose and I am tired of the shit you guys pull because your white asses want to sit in the forum posting up racist bullshit. So from now on, when I get trolled I am reporting it.

This is the race and racism section. I am going to talk about how whites have done things to us. I am going to talk about how whites still do the same shit and lie about how they aren't. I am not going to temper my language in order to please white people. You are going to get the full monty when needed because the shit you guys have pulled and continue to try pulling on us is not nice. I don't see any of you m-f's talking about hey we need to stop doing this or blacks will get mad. Instead I read I don't have white guilt so fuck you .So understand that I don't have any black guilt and that I am not concerned about your punk asses thinking I hate whites. I am not concerned about you bitches calling me a racist. You are going to get shown your lie in your faces.. So get mad. Then understand that I don't give a damn if white people get mad. They are not near as mad as I am for having to put up with you r bullshit and your lying about how racism is over for the 56 years I have lived so far.

.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how I benefit today from redlining that ended long ago.

Did you forget your claim?

Do you have no evidence?

I asked the same thing, no answer.

 

[Montrovant]

It is the point. You have posted numerous race baiting threads in which you insult "whitey" and claim that :whitey" owe blacks something. That is your entire zeitgeist here. If you are goign to post such drivel, then expect to be called on it.

Insult whitey? Who cares? There has been no race baiting This government and every other level of this government owes blacks money for laws they enacted that denied us the right to earn money, then laws that made it so we could not earn what we were worth. Those are the facts and if that insults you so be it. We are talking about human rights violations. And whites who deny this are now going to be called on it here in this forum.

Now you will either discuss the thread topic or you will leave.

The government owes blacks money? Just en masse, huh? Does it owe the same money to other minorities? Will the funds used be pulled specifically from the taxes of whites?

Yes the government at every level owes lacks money.

The government is paying Native Americans money Montrovant. OK? Every year. OK?

The government paid every Japanese citizen 25,000 for WW2 Montrovant. OK?

No one asked these question when these things happen.

We are not going to turn this into the usual standardized white racist ranting about reparations. You pay them every year,

This is the thread topic:

No one white today owned slaves but most whites today benefitted from the 100 years after slavery.

You are the one that brought it up. You certainly do like to try to force everyone to discuss only what you want to discuss, but don't hold yourself to the same sort of standard.

I suggest you go back and read the post I made to that person before you make another comment. Seems that you lost your mind because I mentioned that blacks are owed money and that's all you remember. You don't seem capable of remembering the part where I told the person that I have responded to his opinion but we will not be discussing reparations in this thread..

I am not forcing you to do anything but what the rules of this forum require of us who are the OPS of a thread.

Sorry, you are right that boed brought the subject up.

I did not say you were actually forcing anyone to do anything, rather that you are attempting to. On multiple occasions you have told people what they can or cannot post. They do not have to listen to you, but you have tried to get them to talk about what you think they should talk about, while being perfectly willing to go off topic when it suits you.

 

[Correll]

Pick your best example, and I will be happy to compare contrast the causes, effects, reactions and end results.

Make a thread providing evidence of this anti white discrimination. Because we will not be discussing it here.

Our national policy is to discriminate against whites in favor of blacks and browns.

This directly contradicts your OP. Thus it is on topic.


Try to be less dishonest.

Dishonest is lying about some nations policy of discrimination against whites.

Now since you have suggested it is national policy and that it has been a long time national policy produce the laws and policies that created anti white discrimination. I did say laws and policies. That means supreme court decisions and legislation. Not 30 year old studies about elite colleges where whites are the majority..

Here is a big one.

Disparate impact - Wikipedia


"A violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act may be proven by showing that an employment practice or policy has a disproportionately adverse effect on members of the protected class as compared with non-members of the protected class."


"Where a disparate impact is shown, the plaintiff can prevail without the necessity of showing intentional discrimination"



Thus, in situations like the New Haven FIrefighters case, if not enough blacks apply or are qualified,


it is still on the EMPLOYER to have equality of outcome, or be vulnerable to being sued.


Thus, requiring hiring or promoting blacks based on being black, regardless of the qualifications of whites applying.

As I understand it, disparate impact is supposed to apply where the qualifications are not relevant to the employment. The case where it first came up, Griggs v Duke Power in 1971, the court ruled that the standards being used to just job qualification did not actually do so; instead, while the standards might hold an appearance of neutrality, because they did not actually have an impact on qualification for the job, but did prevent more minorities from getting employment opportunities, they were discriminatory in practice. Of course, you could argue that the practice of disparate impact itself creates a disparate impact.

However, the principle of disparate impact seems to be that employers cannot use standards for qualification which have a negative impact on a protected class if those standards are not important to the job. If a construction company decided to make having an African-American studies course credit one of the qualifications for someone doing manual labor, and that led to the company hiring a disproportionate number of blacks, members of other races would have a good disparate impact case. If, on the other hand, there were a written test on basic construction practices, and that led to a disproportionate number of blacks being hired, I don't think a disparate impact case would have a good chance of winning.

That is my reading of it, at least, which is only from a layman's perspective.

In new haven the standards were written tests about fire fighter procedures. There was no claim that the tests were not good for the purpose of picking qualified applicants for promotion.


THe problem was that no blacks passed and the city was afraid to promote too many whites and no blacks.


The city felt it had to discriminate to protect itself.

At first the courts agreed.

At the final level, the side of NOT discrimination won by ONE VOTE.


This is not a ruling that will be making employers not worry about getting sued.

 

[Correll]

Tell that to the new haven fire fighters.

YOur denial of the obvious reality is what is ridiculous.

First of all, one incident, or even multiple incidents, of anti-white discrimination would not prove that there has been generations of active discrimination against whites. Second, even if there is this multi-generational discrimination against whites, it would not mean white racism is a dead issue.

The incident was caused by the legal theory of Disparate Impact, that makes the employer responsible for having equality of outcome despite any inequalities in the labor force caused by say, the shit urban schools.


Thus, the city, felt they HAD to discriminate against the white firefighters.


That theory was not something that only happens in New Haven, but is universal in our society.


The court system initially ruled in favor of anti-white discrimination.


When it reached the Supreme Court, the ruling, as normal in such cases, was by party lines with the dem appointed judges all in favor of blatant anti-white discrimination,

while the gop appointed judges ruled against the discrimination, BUT narrowly, not against the Disparate Impact Theory itself.


This shows that anti-whites discrimination is supported by both sides of the political divide.

None of that post validates the claims that "white racism is pretty much a dead issue" or that this country "has for generations been actively discriminating against whites."

As far as the New Haven firefighters, so far as I know they won their case, and were given back pay to the tune of $2 million. And while the case did not invalidate disparate impact, my reading of it is that it created a stronger standard to fill in such cases. Employers will have a harder time using fears of a disparate impact law suit as a defense for race-based decisions.

It demonstrates both the intent and the practice of the Law.

Yes, the fire fighers won. After they took it all the way to the Supreme Court. ANd they won by a 5-4 split.


The basic issue that Disparate Impact is still a valid grounds for suing puts the employers, ALL EMPLOYERS in the same boat where they can be held accountable for the failure of blacks to be qualified.


AND, as demographic shift continues, do you doubt that it will be long before a major liberal court reverses that ruling?

Disparate impact is not, so far as I'm aware, exclusive to blacks or any one race.

It is exclusive to "protected classes" which means anyone not a white male.



Blacks and browns are the primary focus.

 

[boedicca]

It is the point. You have posted numerous race baiting threads in which you insult "whitey" and claim that :whitey" owe blacks something. That is your entire zeitgeist here. If you are goign to post such drivel, then expect to be called on it.

Insult whitey? Who cares? There has been no race baiting This government and every other level of this government owes blacks money for laws they enacted that denied us the right to earn money, then laws that made it so we could not earn what we were worth. Those are the facts and if that insults you so be it. We are talking about human rights violations. And whites who deny this are now going to be called on it here in this forum.

Now you will either discuss the thread topic or you will leave.

I am discussing the topic. Youi are race baiting. Pure and simple.

This is the topic.

No one white today owned slaves but most whites today benefitted from the 100 years after slavery.

You are not discussing the topic nor is there any race baiting going on here.

i was born AFTER the policy of the US changed from anti black discrimination to anti-white discrimination.

My father, a working class white, did not pass on anything but a good role model to me.

There never was such a change.

Have you been in a coma for the past 50 years?

Racial quotas which given preference to one race over another are RACIST, regardless of which Crayola Color is given priority.

 

[IM2]

Insult whitey? Who cares? There has been no race baiting This government and every other level of this government owes blacks money for laws they enacted that denied us the right to earn money, then laws that made it so we could not earn what we were worth. Those are the facts and if that insults you so be it. We are talking about human rights violations. And whites who deny this are now going to be called on it here in this forum.

Now you will either discuss the thread topic or you will leave.

The government owes blacks money? Just en masse, huh? Does it owe the same money to other minorities? Will the funds used be pulled specifically from the taxes of whites?

Yes the government at every level owes lacks money.

The government is paying Native Americans money Montrovant. OK? Every year. OK?

The government paid every Japanese citizen 25,000 for WW2 Montrovant. OK?

No one asked these question when these things happen.

We are not going to turn this into the usual standardized white racist ranting about reparations. You pay them every year,

This is the thread topic:

No one white today owned slaves but most whites today benefitted from the 100 years after slavery.

You are the one that brought it up. You certainly do like to try to force everyone to discuss only what you want to discuss, but don't hold yourself to the same sort of standard.

I suggest you go back and read the post I made to that person before you make another comment. Seems that you lost your mind because I mentioned that blacks are owed money and that's all you remember. You don't seem capable of remembering the part where I told the person that I have responded to his opinion but we will not be discussing reparations in this thread..

I am not forcing you to do anything but what the rules of this forum require of us who are the OPS of a thread.

Sorry, you are right that boed brought the subject up.

I did not say you were actually forcing anyone to do anything, rather that you are attempting to. On multiple occasions you have told people what they can or cannot post. They do not have to listen to you, but you have tried to get them to talk about what you think they should talk about, while being perfectly willing to go off topic when it suits you.

Yes I have told people what they can or cannot post. As the OP I am required to keep the threads I start on topic,

I don't go off topic. I do not take kindly to personal attacks.

That is what I got told by a moderator. So if you don't like me doing that, stay on thread topic. Because I don't see you telling people these threads aren't about slavery wen they decide to make comments bout how they did not own slaves om every tread, decide to launch personal attacks or how we blacks should be grateful to whites for dying to give us freedom from slavery..

 

[IM2]

First of all, one incident, or even multiple incidents, of anti-white discrimination would not prove that there has been generations of active discrimination against whites. Second, even if there is this multi-generational discrimination against whites, it would not mean white racism is a dead issue.

The incident was caused by the legal theory of Disparate Impact, that makes the employer responsible for having equality of outcome despite any inequalities in the labor force caused by say, the shit urban schools.


Thus, the city, felt they HAD to discriminate against the white firefighters.


That theory was not something that only happens in New Haven, but is universal in our society.


The court system initially ruled in favor of anti-white discrimination.


When it reached the Supreme Court, the ruling, as normal in such cases, was by party lines with the dem appointed judges all in favor of blatant anti-white discrimination,

while the gop appointed judges ruled against the discrimination, BUT narrowly, not against the Disparate Impact Theory itself.


This shows that anti-whites discrimination is supported by both sides of the political divide.

None of that post validates the claims that "white racism is pretty much a dead issue" or that this country "has for generations been actively discriminating against whites."

As far as the New Haven firefighters, so far as I know they won their case, and were given back pay to the tune of $2 million. And while the case did not invalidate disparate impact, my reading of it is that it created a stronger standard to fill in such cases. Employers will have a harder time using fears of a disparate impact law suit as a defense for race-based decisions.

It demonstrates both the intent and the practice of the Law.

Yes, the fire fighers won. After they took it all the way to the Supreme Court. ANd they won by a 5-4 split.


The basic issue that Disparate Impact is still a valid grounds for suing puts the employers, ALL EMPLOYERS in the same boat where they can be held accountable for the failure of blacks to be qualified.


AND, as demographic shift continues, do you doubt that it will be long before a major liberal court reverses that ruling?

Disparate impact is not, so far as I'm aware, exclusive to blacks or any one race.

It is exclusive to "protected classes" which means anyone not a white male.



Blacks and browns are the primary focus.

You talk about protected classes. Why are there protected classes? What are they being protected against?

Why would white men not be a protected class?